The official fixed crate topic

[forgrin]

There really is no legitimate argument against it except this "don't standardize the game blah blah blah blah" bullshit I think

It is much more complex than this honestly. I think also it is more inherent to whether you think that randomness is a good or bad factor in a game. Many games of success (e.g. poker) have some degree of randomness (generally more way more than AOE3) and they are still games of skill.

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

Poker =/= aoe3. You could easily play a couple hundred hands in a pro poker game whereas it's just a bo9 for the finals of our biggest tourney.

[Imperial Noob]

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

So you've supposedly played around... 666,(7) hours times m (with m being the number of minutes in an average match)?
If we accepted, say m=20,
then you would have over 13 000 hours played.
nice.

[Garja]

Well first of all EP goal doesn't state anywhere that the balance is aimed at tourney games. Competitive gaming is also everyday rated game.
Second, even in a BO5 things do compensate quite a lot.
Third, the crate system is only partially random. Both civs get the same crate. In 90% of cases the random crate helps or penalizes both civs.

[Garja]

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

So you've supposedly played around... 666,(7) hours times m (with m being the number of minutes in an average match)?
If we accepted, say m=20,
then you would have over 13 000 hours played.
nice.

I think I did a rough estimate once and basically I spent a whole year of my life around this game (not just playing but also forums, map making, etc.). Nothing to be very proud of, you know, but atleast you do have some experience to back your arguments.

[gibson]

There really is no legitimate argument against it except this "don't standardize the game blah blah blah blah" bullshit I think

It is much more complex than this honestly. I think also it is more inherent to whether you think that randomness is a good or bad factor in a game. Many games of success (e.g. poker) have some degree of randomness (generally more way more than AOE3) and they are still games of skill.

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

And what you're talking about is should balanced be sacrificed for enjoyment. I mean, everyone would agree that the game would be more balanced if it basically got turned into sc2 with no treasures, set maps, etc, but it would also be way more boring as well as lose some strategical depth and adaption. Also, games that have large degrees of randomness ( e.g. poker), players are barely penalized for having bad luck if they play it correctly. If you get a pocket 2 and 7 of different suites you can just fold and the only way you're penalized is when the large/small blind comes around. Aoe3 isn't like that at all.

[SoldieR]

I really wouldn't have expected garja to be on this side of the argument, him being a fan of mirrors, but I agree with him. Also, I don't think it has such a big effect on games. The difference between starting market or starting to is basically preference anyway.

[iNcog]

Copied from the other thread, this post was supposed to answer OP's question but ended up being about crates.

Well for some people the crates aren't imbalanced enough for them to be worth getting rid of. The trade off of fixed crates is making discovery age stale, as in there's a little less adaption, less variation, less micromanagement to get your build off right, etc. Some will rightfully argue that this doesn't separate good players from bad players and that the age 1 phase of the game is boring anyway (though that being boring is subjective). The way I see it, I don't see the problem with variation at the start of the game. It does add something. I think the balance issues regarding crates can be overblown, but I'm not as high a level a player as diarouga so I won't argue his points. I do want to note however, that if one argues to fix crates, one naturally argues that treasures should probably be eliminated from the game and that maps should no longer spawn randomly. After all, that is both more balanced and less RNG.

The issue with "more balance, less rng" is that Age of Empires 3 is a game which does not really suffer from the inherent randomness of maps, treasures, etc. Variation is what makes a game more deep and interesting, look at LoL with their huge champion pool, same with Dota. Variation and randomness is part of the Age of Empires package, it's what makes the game as deep as it is. For example there are several different ways to open the game: market, TP, nothing. Fixing crate starts means that every civ suddenly has one "best" opening and all the others are inferior. Sure, it's not like the different variations are what make AoE3 the good game that it is, but they're still there. Fixing crates just reduces options, which I inherently dislike. Age of Empire games are inherently about adaption and the game is designed to work with procedural generation. That's a huge plus, as far as I'm concerned. There is some good youtube material on the subject, linked here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5SAfTSIOE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYodywXM_ps

[Garja]

There really is no legitimate argument against it except this "don't standardize the game blah blah blah blah" bullshit I think

It is much more complex than this honestly. I think also it is more inherent to whether you think that randomness is a good or bad factor in a game. Many games of success (e.g. poker) have some degree of randomness (generally more way more than AOE3) and they are still games of skill.

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

And what you're talking about is should balanced be sacrificed for enjoyment. I mean, everyone would agree that the game would be more balanced if it basically got turned into sc2 with no treasures, set maps, etc, but it would also be way more boring as well as lose some strategical depth and adaption. Also, games that have large degrees of randomness ( e.g. poker), players are barely penalized for having bad luck if they play it correctly. If you get a pocket 2 and 7 of different suites you can just fold and the only way you're penalized is when the large/small blind comes around. Aoe3 isn't like that at all.

Yep this is true.
Enjoyment (or fun) is key for the game tho.
Also the other major point here is that fixed crates is really an easy way out to balance the game. Literally it is about removing one aspect, not just fixing it. Random crates increase the possibilities in many MUs. French mirror (which is by far the most boring and probably explored one) have different dominant strategies depending upon the crate spawn. With same spawn every game you would get a single dominant strategy instead.
Random crates combine well with treasures. Sometimes a gold start+gold treasure make the market start viable. And it can be viable only for the player who picks the treasure, which not only creates an interesting assymetry from which the game can evolve but also rewards the player that planned that from the beginning.

[iNcog]

I haven't heard anyone suggesting removal or even symmetrical treasure placement.

No, however if one were to fix starting crates, then this would be the next, natural step to do. It does the same thing in regards to fixing balance, "fixing" rng and making the game very fair. If a 100w crate can make Iroq go from OP to UP, then what about a 95w treasure? What about bigger treasures?

Why aren't the people who are arguing "fix crates" also arguing to "fix treasures". They should be, since random crates and treasures are more or less the same thing. Scouting the map for hunts, mines and treasure hunting may as well be boring, not add much to the game. So why is it there?

[Atomiswave]

I haven't heard anyone suggesting removal or even symmetrical treasure placement.

No, however if one were to fix starting crates, then this would be the next, natural step to do. It does the same thing in regards to fixing balance, "fixing" rng and making the game very fair. If a 100w crate can make Iroq go from OP to UP, then what about a 95w treasure? What about bigger treasures?

Why aren't the people who are arguing "fix crates" also arguing to "fix treasures". They should be, since random crates and treasures are more or less the same thing. Scouting the map for hunts, mines and treasure hunting may as well be boring, not add much to the game. So why is it there?[/quote]

I think treasures should be maximum RNG factor in AOE III.

[iNcog]

Why do you draw the line there, is there a particular reason?

I think rng is fine for crates, treasures, maps, hunts, mines, etc.

[forgrin]

Why do you draw the line there, is there a particular reason?

I think rng is fine for crates, treasures, maps, hunts, mines, etc.

If you check my reply in the other thread I explain it a bit there.

tl:dr version: treasures, maps, hunts, mines you have at least some control over (and in tourney you can re the map for bad resources). Crates are completely random. They're completely different issues that shouldn't be lumped together.

[fightinfrenchman]

If you are really skilled at the game you will be prepared for whatever crates you get. Having fixed crates just means players will focus on a single strategy and just make more games look the same.

[gustavusadolphus]

I like the element of randomness it helps keep players on their toes and keeps games more exciting.

RNG doesn't make games exciting. Good, well balanced gameplay does.

Treating a game as a math problem with nearly the same variables every time is not fun.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

There really is no legitimate argument against it except this "don't standardize the game blah blah blah blah" bullshit I think

It is much more complex than this honestly. I think also it is more inherent to whether you think that randomness is a good or bad factor in a game. Many games of success (e.g. poker) have some degree of randomness (generally more way more than AOE3) and they are still games of skill.

I can tell you that having played 40k (rough estimate) of games this is one of those elements that would have made it 20k or less.

And what you're talking about is should balanced be sacrificed for enjoyment. I mean, everyone would agree that the game would be more balanced if it basically got turned into sc2 with no treasures, set maps, etc, but it would also be way more boring as well as lose some strategical depth and adaption. Also, games that have large degrees of randomness ( e.g. poker), players are barely penalized for having bad luck if they play it correctly. If you get a pocket 2 and 7 of different suites you can just fold and the only way you're penalized is when the large/small blind comes around. Aoe3 isn't like that at all.

Yep this is true.
Enjoyment (or fun) is key for the game tho.
Also the other major point here is that fixed crates is really an easy way out to balance the game. Literally it is about removing one aspect, not just fixing it. Random crates increase the possibilities in many MUs. French mirror (which is by far the most boring and probably explored one) have different dominant strategies depending upon the crate spawn. With same spawn every game you would get a single dominant strategy instead.
Random crates combine well with treasures. Sometimes a gold start+gold treasure make the market start viable. And it can be viable only for the player who picks the treasure, which not only creates an interesting assymetry from which the game can evolve but also rewards the player that planned that from the beginning.

you have a point there, but the alternative is to make sure that every start adds different possibilities to a civ, but they dont really. I mean fre 300f 100w start means 12/10 and age fast. 200f 200w means early tp and 200f 100w 100c means early market, so this is quite good. But for india it's basically that all the other starts which are not 400w just don't add any possibilities. It's not like you can age faster, it's not like you can FF better or get a market. It's just trash. So instead you gotta make sure that the crates add possibilities or something, which also requires alot of changes to many civs which we are just not willing to do.

[AraGun]

How bout no crates at all for anyone? And move on. Instead give each civ the required resources to make 3 villagers.. Just like in age 2 the most balanced age game still to this day.
Then cards like 300w first will come into play and make for more interesting starts.

[forgrin]

If you are really skilled at the game you will be prepared for whatever crates you get. Having fixed crates just means players will focus on a single strategy and just make more games look the same.

It has nothing to do with skill. A master sergeant can easily execute starting market or TP depending on crates.

[deleted_user]

Ideally this would be an option to toggle before a game similar to the FFA and handicap options, though I do not think that is possible.

Fixing crate spawns is simply too far out of EP's original philosophy to implement as a standard, imo, even though personally I support it. It would serve to divide the player base even more potentially causing a rift between EP versions which is obviously not something we want. We want everyone to be moving onto the next version of EP willingly.

I've heard some solid arguments for keeping the randomness, namely, the skill gap it creates in certain difficult age 1 macros (think ger 200w 200f) and I find a compelling argument but so do I find compelling arguments in the OP here, which is why I'd love to see something toggle-able.

I even think this upcoming 2v2 invitational or similar smaller event could be used as a sort of testing ground.

That's true that it changes the age 1 macro, but honestly when you've played more than 2000 games (it's not the case of everybody, but not everybody plays on the EP anyway), it just doesn't change much.
And the iro balance is just too big.

The patch team is aware of this. It would make the EP team's job much easier for instance if fixed crates were a thing because right now balancing for RNG can be difficult :p

Though this is a large, fundamental change that would affect a very integral part of aoe 3 that has been around since its release over a decade ago. The affect this might have on the player base and the potential for rifting should be discussed in depth, in my opinion, and not immediately dismissed because you think it would be "highly unlikely" this causes community frustrations.

[Garja]

you have a point there, but the alternative is to make sure that every start adds different possibilities to a civ, but they dont really. I mean fre 300f 100w start means 12/10 and age fast. 200f 200w means early tp and 200f 100w 100c means early market, so this is quite good. But for india it's basically that all the other starts which are not 400w just don't add any possibilities. It's not like you can age faster, it's not like you can FF better or get a market. It's just trash. So instead you gotta make sure that the crates add possibilities or something, which also requires alot of changes to many civs which we are just not willing to do.

Well, Asian civs in general don't have that many options with the starting crates just because of how they're designed. They do have more options than euro civ as the game progresses tho.
Also to be fair, with 400w and with any 200f start you can think more of 10/10ing as India, while in other cases that doesn't work very well at all. Also India kinda misses another food crate atleast on paper (getting 4 base crates instead of the 5 and 6 respectively of China and Japan).
If China had the same crates mechanic as other civs they could perhaps do some market start with 300f 200w 100g starts. Free 2 villages or TP with 400w and just one village with 200f 200w 100g.
Japan already has some options in age1 even tho the consulate one seems the best almost always.

[fightinfrenchman]

If you are really skilled at the game you will be prepared for whatever crates you get. Having fixed crates just means players will focus on a single strategy and just make more games look the same.

It has nothing to do with skill. A master sergeant can easily execute starting market or TP depending on crates.

It just seems lazy to me to expect the crates to be the same every game because some players do not want to adapt.

[Darwin_]

I voted yes, because I agree with Diarouga very much. Undoubtedly, it will solve many balance issues. I think that the EP has had a doctrine of minimal changes with maximal effect, and I think that this totally falls under this category. What made 1.2 ger/fre/RE Iro so strong was that they could have the crates to start TP. Without a TP or 200w, those civs are far more balanced. Yes, it does take away some uniqueness/thrill from the game, but I think never loosing a game due to the matchup is way more valuable than having a little bit more randomness. The EP is made for competitive play and making it as, well, competitive as possible. This change is so simple and is a great first, or even final, step towards a very well balanced game. There are some civs that I think could avoid fixed crates and still be balanced, or given like 2 possible crate options. Ports, russia, dutch and maybe even brits come to mind.

[gustavusadolphus]

I voted yes, because I agree with Diarouga very much. Undoubtedly, it will solve many balance issues. I think that the EP has had a doctrine of minimal changes with maximal effect, and I think that this totally falls under this category. What made 1.2 ger/fre/RE Iro so strong was that they could have the crates to start TP. Without a TP or 200w, those civs are far more balanced. Yes, it does take away some uniqueness/thrill from the game, but I think never loosing a game due to the matchup is way more valuable than having a little bit more randomness. The EP is made for competitive play and making it as, well, competitive as possible. This change is so simple and is a great first, or even final, step towards a very well balanced game. There are some civs that I think could avoid fixed crates and still be balanced, or given like 2 possible crate options. Ports, russia, dutch and maybe even brits come to mind.

I think this is important when we are talking about a game. Remember folks its only a game. We should not take away asnything that adds fun and uniqueness.

If we go so far as to make crates fixed why not have every map fixed with fixed building locations and layouts. Why not turn the game into halo wars. Who knows maybe even one resource.

[forgrin]

If you are really skilled at the game you will be prepared for whatever crates you get. Having fixed crates just means players will focus on a single strategy and just make more games look the same.

It has nothing to do with skill. A master sergeant can easily execute starting market or TP depending on crates.

It just seems lazy to me to expect the crates to be the same every game because some players do not want to adapt.

Saying this again for like the 10th time...

It has nothing to do with "adapting." Different crates just straight up give some civs advantages over others purely depending on RNG. Everyone here knows how to "adapt" to different crate starts. That is a very, very basic skill and really isn't gonna define a game, so it's not necessary.

[forgrin]

I voted yes, because I agree with Diarouga very much. Undoubtedly, it will solve many balance issues. I think that the EP has had a doctrine of minimal changes with maximal effect, and I think that this totally falls under this category. What made 1.2 ger/fre/RE Iro so strong was that they could have the crates to start TP. Without a TP or 200w, those civs are far more balanced. Yes, it does take away some uniqueness/thrill from the game, but I think never loosing a game due to the matchup is way more valuable than having a little bit more randomness. The EP is made for competitive play and making it as, well, competitive as possible. This change is so simple and is a great first, or even final, step towards a very well balanced game. There are some civs that I think could avoid fixed crates and still be balanced, or given like 2 possible crate options. Ports, russia, dutch and maybe even brits come to mind.

I think this is important when we are talking about a game. Remember folks its only a game. We should not take away asnything that adds fun and uniqueness.

If we go so far as to make crates fixed why not have every map fixed with fixed building locations and layouts. Why not turn the game into halo wars. Who knows maybe even one resource.

It doesn't take away "uniqueness/thrill" lol wtf are you guys on about. The only person who ever gets hype about crate starts is Interjection. I really don't see how this is a valid argument whatsoever, try playing China and you'll see there's plenty that can go on still.

[gustavusadolphus]

I voted yes, because I agree with Diarouga very much. Undoubtedly, it will solve many balance issues. I think that the EP has had a doctrine of minimal changes with maximal effect, and I think that this totally falls under this category. What made 1.2 ger/fre/RE Iro so strong was that they could have the crates to start TP. Without a TP or 200w, those civs are far more balanced. Yes, it does take away some uniqueness/thrill from the game, but I think never loosing a game due to the matchup is way more valuable than having a little bit more randomness. The EP is made for competitive play and making it as, well, competitive as possible. This change is so simple and is a great first, or even final, step towards a very well balanced game. There are some civs that I think could avoid fixed crates and still be balanced, or given like 2 possible crate options. Ports, russia, dutch and maybe even brits come to mind.

I think this is important when we are talking about a game. Remember folks its only a game. We should not take away asnything that adds fun and uniqueness.

If we go so far as to make crates fixed why not have every map fixed with fixed building locations and layouts. Why not turn the game into halo wars. Who knows maybe even one resource.

It doesn't take away "uniqueness/thrill" lol wtf are you guys on about. The only person who ever gets hype about crate starts is Interjection. I really don't see how this is a valid argument whatsoever, try playing China and you'll see there's plenty that can go on still.

Are you arguing that random crates are not unique and that getting that 100 extra wood is not thrilling?